In Re Valterza

California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 1940 No. Crim. 2120Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party cannot challenge a contempt finding by collaterally attacking the underlying judgment as merely erroneous; such a judgment remains enforceable unless it is absolutely void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether a party may challenge a contempt order by asserting that the underlying judgment was based on an insufficient complaint.
Whether a judgment is void for the purposes of a contempt proceeding if it is merely erroneous rather than lacking jurisdiction.
Whether an ordinance is unconstitutionally vague or arbitrary regarding the regulation of animal slaughter and keeping.

Disposition. Writ discharged and prisoner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“in a proceeding for contempt in failing to obey an order of the court, the respondent may question the order which he is charged with refusing to obey only in so far as he can show it to be absolutely void”

“judgments of courts cannot be attacked collaterally for mere irregularities in the proceeding, however erroneous they may be.”

“The trial court did not act in excess of its jurisdiction.”

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an application for a writ of

habeas corpus.

It rests on the following facts. After the judgment of the trial court was entered in

Gould and Kane, Incorporated,

Valterza et al.,

Civil No. 11122 the case this day filed

(ante,

p. 678 [100 Pac. (2d) 335], a showing was made to the trial court that the defendants had been guilty of contempt. A citation issued, a hearing was had, and Charles Valterza was found guilty. He applied to this court for a writ of

habeas corpus.

The writ issued, a return was made, and the application was submitted with the ease above mentioned. The petitioner contends the complaint in

Gould and Kane, Incorporated,

Valterza et al., supra,

was insufficient, that the trial court therefore had no jurisdiction, its judgment in favor of the plaintiff was void, and a violation of a void order is, no contempt. But the vice in this contention is the assertion that the trial court’s judgment was void. A similar assertion was addressed to the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case entitled

Smith

Schlink,

44 Colo. 200 [99 Pac. 566, at page 570], where the court said: “That the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter cannot be questioned. This being true, and it not

[684]

appearing that the judgment was not within the issues presented by the pleadings, however erroneous it may be, the judgment cannot be held to be void, so as to bring this case within the rule that disobedience of a void decree does not constitute contempt of court.

In Re Valterza

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief